Time Set on New Wall Clocks

I have been told it is to honor the 16th president of the United States, Abraham Lincoln, who was shot at around 10:10 PM. This was sufficient to satisfy the curiosity of a nine year old boy, and I never questioned it.

Why would time keepers around the world hold such a custom? As I consider, there is sort of a disconnect there. Maybe my Gramma told me a fib, just to keep me quiet.

I checked the ROLEX™ website, to see if they have a bit of history. No info about why, but every watch displayed on their website is set to 10:12 or pretty close to it. There must be a global reason for this custom.

The "guest" is correct based on a radio discussion that I recently heard where a marketing guru was being interviewed. He also remarked that the position in some way "looks like a smile" and was selected for that.

He indicated that there is a move with some advertisers to change the time displayed to 11 minutes to 2 as this situation creates an "expectation" of the minute hand to move.

From my perspective, I buy a watch or clock when I need a new one. Advertising like that would not influence my decision, especially when they all have chosen to use exactly the same style.

The answer from the guest looks like it and you'd confirmed, thank you for the effort.

cheers,

ethobil

While the guest's answer sounds plausible it doesn't mean that it's actually correct. And just because someone else supported his response also doesn't make it a correct answer as both may have gotten their positions from the same source which could be in error. Or that may be no actual way to confirm the reason why. I am not saying it's not a marketing gimmick....it very well could be....just that I'm not sure the answers given are enough.

If it is a marketing gimmick, I wonder if some marketeer reasoned it out...or if actual studies were done (i.e. show a few hundred subjects watches with different hand configurations and see which one the subjects find most appealing or something along those lines).

"While the guest's answer sounds plausible it doesn't mean that it's actually correct. And just because someone else supported his response also doesn't make it a correct answer as both may have gotten their positions from the same source which could be in error..."

While agreeing with your assertion, note that the guest's response was direct and clear and not pointing to mythology. Indeed of all the response to this question both in and outside this forum (see my OP) the guest's has been more pragmatic.

"...I am not saying it's not a marketing gimmick....it very well could be....just that I'm not sure the answers given are enough..."

The guest indicated that it was a marketing technique and not gimmick.

Cheers,

ethobil

During the digital watch phase were they all set to 10:10?